Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/1942/20253
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | HUYBRECHTS, Liesbeth | - |
dc.contributor.author | MARTENS, Sarah | - |
dc.contributor.author | DEVISCH, Oswald | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2016-01-14T15:09:24Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2016-01-14T15:09:24Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2015 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Proceedings of Design Anthropological Futures | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1942/20253 | - |
dc.description.abstract | In the village Godsheide (BE) controversy exists on the role participatory processes play in defining the decision-making in spatial planning design. This is due to ten years of inadequate communication between the citizens, policy makers and property developers. In 2014 the citizens started a Participatory Design (PD) process with our research group to re-open communication between all actors. We used a Design Anthropological approach wherein we followed everyday activities in Godsheide through Action Research to build collaborative relationships with the participants (Bradbury, Reason, 2003). At the same time, via co-design workshops we engaged more actively with how people perceive, create, and transform their environment and guided this towards spatial scenarios addressing different timelines: past, present and future (Gunn, Otto & Smith, 2013, xiii; Sanders & Stappers, 2008). As Otto & Smith (2013) indicate, this distorted temporal orientation is one of the clear differences between design and anthropology. This position paper engages with the methodological implications of designers engaging with “ethnographies of the possible” or doing ethnography in a a semi-fictional space. | - |
dc.language.iso | en | - |
dc.publisher | KADK | - |
dc.subject.other | design; participation | - |
dc.title | THE FUTURE IS TODAY. Scripting public debate on Design Anthropological encounters | - |
dc.type | Proceedings Paper | - |
local.bibliographicCitation.conferencedate | 13-14 August 2015 | - |
local.bibliographicCitation.conferencename | Design Anthropological Futures | - |
local.bibliographicCitation.conferenceplace | Copenhagen, Denmark | - |
local.format.pages | 3 | - |
local.bibliographicCitation.jcat | C2 | - |
local.publisher.place | Copenhagen | - |
dc.relation.references | Akrich, M. (1992) The De-scription of Technological Objects. Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MIT Press, 176–177. Binder, T. (1999). Setting the Stage for Improvised Video Scenarios. CHI99. Brandt, E. & Grunnet, C. (2000). Evoking the future: Drama and Props in use centered design. In Proc. PDC 2000. Bradbury, H. Reason, P. (2003). Action Research An Opportunity for Revitalizing Research Purpose and Practices. Qualitative Social Work, 2(2): 155-175 Sage Publications London. Clark, B. (2013) Generating Publics through Design Activity. In: Design Anthropology: Theory and Practice. Bloomsbury Publishing, 199-215. Di Salvo, C. (2009). Design and the Construction of Publics. Design Issues, 25 (1). Forester, J. (2000). The Deliberative Practitioner. Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books. Goffman, E. (1986). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Gunn, Wendy, Ton Otto & Rachel Charlotte Smith (2013). Design anthropology: theory and practice. London, New York: Bloomsbury. Halse, J. (2008). Design Anthropology: Borderland Experiments with Participation, Performance and Situated Intervention. Copenhagen: IT University. Latour, B. (2005). From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik or How to Make Things Public. In: Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy. Cambridge: MIT, 14-43. Parkins, J.R. & Mitchell, R.E. (2005). Public participation as public debate: a deliberative turn in natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources 18, 6 . 529–540. Salgado, M. & Galanakis, M. (2014). “... so what?”- Limitations of Participatory Design on Decision-making in Urban Planning. In Proc. PDC2104. 5-8. McQuail, D. (2010). MassCommunication Theory. An Introduction. Sage Publications, 28. Sanders, E.B.N. & Stappers, P.J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign 4 (1), 5–18. | - |
local.type.refereed | Refereed | - |
local.type.specified | Proceedings Paper | - |
dc.identifier.url | https://kadk.dk/sites/default/files/liesbeth_huybrechts.pdf | - |
local.bibliographicCitation.btitle | Proceedings of Design Anthropological Futures | - |
item.contributor | HUYBRECHTS, Liesbeth | - |
item.contributor | MARTENS, Sarah | - |
item.contributor | DEVISCH, Oswald | - |
item.fullcitation | HUYBRECHTS, Liesbeth; MARTENS, Sarah & DEVISCH, Oswald (2015) THE FUTURE IS TODAY. Scripting public debate on Design Anthropological encounters. In: Proceedings of Design Anthropological Futures. | - |
item.accessRights | Open Access | - |
item.fulltext | With Fulltext | - |
Appears in Collections: | Research publications |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
liesbeth_huybrechts kadk design anthropology.pdf | Peer-reviewed author version | 106.03 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Page view(s)
28
checked on Jul 14, 2022
Download(s)
6
checked on Jul 14, 2022
Google ScholarTM
Check
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.